coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Elista, the Kalmyk Republic.
5.  In the 1980s he took part in a rescue operation on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.
6.  As of late 1996 the applicant has been in receipt of social benefits in this connection.
7.  In June 1999 he brought a civil action against the Pension Fund of Elista because it had wrongly calculated his pension.
8.  On 26 August 1999 the Elista Town Court dismissed the action.
9.  On 25 November 1999 the Supreme Court of the Kalmyk Republic examined the applicant’s appeal, quashed the judgment of 26 August 1999 and ordered the pension authority to:
“calculate the [applicant’s] pension based on the salary which he [had] received during his work in [Chernobyl], in the new circumstances, with regard to the salary which he [had] received on his main job, under conversion rates of 6.7 and 6 for the period established in Article 208 of the Civil Code.”
10.  On 27 January 2000, the Supreme Court supplemented its judgment of 25 November 1999 with an order to:
“recalculate the [applicant’s] pension for the period from 11 November 1997 to 25 November 1999, to pay the [applicant] the difference between the recalculated pension and the pension actually paid, and to increase the average salary, on the basis of which the pension [was] to be calculated, not only by the conversion rates of 6.7 and 6, but also by the minimum pension increments in accordance with section 11-3 of the Rules on Compensation.”
11.  Both decisions came into force immediately.
12.  According to the applicant, the judgment translated into a monthly payment of 8,137.91 roubles (“RUR”, approximately 284 euros, “EUR”).
13.  The authorities failed to execute the judgment.
14.  Between July 2000 and April 2001 the applicant complained about the non-execution to a number of authorities.
15.  The authorities replied that the pension had been recalculated, but it could not actually be paid because the Ministry of Finance had allocated no money for this purpose.
16.  The arrears of RUR 513,407.62 (approximately EUR 15,126) due to the applicant were transferred to him by two instalments on 29 January and 25 April 2002 respectively.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Ankara.
5.  On an unspecified date in 1990 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in Ankara in order to build the Ankara Central Motorway. The authorities paid him the value of the land, assessed by a committee of experts, when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the applicant’s request, on 27 September 1994 the Ankara Civil Court awarded her additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable.
7.  On 29 January 1996 the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.
8.  On 9 February 1998 the amount of 2,800,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) was paid to the applicant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Ankara.
5.  On an unspecified date in 1990 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in Ankara in order to build the Ankara Central Motorway. The authorities paid him the value of the land, assessed by a committee of experts, when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the applicant’s request, on 21 December 1993 the Ankara Civil Court awarded him additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable.
7.  On 20 June 1994 the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.
8.  On 4 February 1998 the amount of 3,600,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) was paid to the applicant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Ankara.
5.  On an unspecified date in 1990 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in Ankara in order to build the Ankara Central Motorway. The authorities paid him the value of the land, assessed by a committee of experts, when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the applicant’s request, on 21 April 1994 the Ankara Civil Court awarded him additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable.
7.  On 11 December 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.
8.  On 28 January 1998 the amount of 313,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) was paid to the applicant.
5.  The applicants were born in 1968, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1994 and 1932 respectively and live in Celje, except the last applicant who lives in Šentvid pri Planini.
6.  The applicants are the wife, the children and the mother of J.S. who died in an accident at work on 22 July 1997. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 7 July 1998 the applicants instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 13,093,982 tolars (approximately 54,550 euros).
Between 17 July 1998 and 17 October 2002 the applicants lodged ten preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 4 March 1999 and 3 October 2001 they made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the six hearings held between 5 June 2001 and 12 November 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed an expert in electrical engineering. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 21 January 2003.
8.  On 22 January 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). The applicants also requested the first-instance court to issue a supplement judgment because it had not yet rendered a ruling on all counts of the applicants’ claim. ZT cross-appealed.
On 3 September 2004 the first-instance court issued a supplementary judgment. The judgment was served on the applicants on 15 September 2004.
9.  On 17 September 2004 the applicants appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.
On 16 March 2006 the court allowed all the appeals in part.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 13 April 2006.
5.  In 1994 the applicant concluded a contract with ASITO (an insurance company incorporated in Moldova), according to which she paid an insurance premium in exchange for an annuity.
6.  Since ASITO failed to pay the annuity at the term, the applicant brought a civil action against it, seeking the payment of the pension to date and requiring the company to abide by the contract.
7.  On 5 October 2001, the Râşcani District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered ASITO to pay the pension due and to resume the execution of the contract.
8.  ASITO appealed against this judgment, asking inter alia for the cancellation of the contract concluded with the applicant in 1994 on the ground that the economic situation of the country had become worse and that the interest rate of the National Bank of Moldova had changed.
9.  On 27 February 2002, the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the appeal arguing that the contract of 1994 was legal and valid and therefore had to be upheld by the parties. ASITO lodged an appeal in cassation against this judgment.
10.  In the meantime, on an unspecified date, the Prosecutor General lodged an “appeal in the interests of the law” with the Supreme Court of Justice. According to the Prosecutor General, the appeal had the purpose of clarifying the controversy surrounding all such contracts and of setting a uniform practice for all the courts.
11.  On 11 March 2002, the Plenary Supreme Court issued a judgment deciding the dispute between ASITO and the pension beneficiaries in favour of the former. It also ruled that its judgment had no retrospective effect on any already existing judgments and that it could not be used against the parties to those proceedings.
12.  On 16 April 2002, a panel of the Court of Appeal composed of judges V.D. (president), T.D. and V.B., quashed the judgments of 5 October 2001 and 27 February 2002, and found in favour of ASITO.
13.  After the delivery of the judgment, the applicant found out that the mandate of Judge V.D., who had presided at the hearing, had expired in 2000 and that he had been dismissed from the position of judge in July 2002.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Romania.
5.  On 30 September 1997, the applicant was placed in police custody on charges of robbery, and informed that an investigation had been opened against him by the prosecutor attached to the Supreme Court of Justice. On 24 October 1997, the prosecutor committed the applicant for trial before the Bucharest County Court.
6.  The Bucharest County Court acquitted the applicant in a judgment of 2 December 1998, upheld, on 9 June 1999, by the Bucharest Court of Appeal. However, in a final decision of 21 March 2000, the Supreme Court of Justice reversed the judgment, convicted the applicant and sentenced him to four years and six months’ imprisonment. He was detained from 30 September 1997 to 10 February 1998 and again from 14 April 2000 to 19 February 2001.
7.  On April 2001, the Procurator‑General, following the applicant’s request, lodged an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice to have the final decision of 21 March 2000 quashed (“recurs în anulare”).
8.  On 8 October 2001, the Supreme Court of Justice allowed the extraordinary appeal. It quashed the final decision of 21 March 2000, the decision of 9 June 1999 and the judgment of 2 December 1998 and sent the case back to the prosecutor to continue the investigations. It held that the evidence adduced in the case was contradictory and needed further clarification before the case could be tried by the courts.
9.  In a decision of 10 July 2002, the prosecutor attached to the Supreme Court of Justice closed the criminal investigations against the applicant. On 23 May 2003, the same prosecutor informed the applicant that he had reversed his previous decision and reopened the criminal investigations in the case.
10.  On 18 March 2004 the prosecutor again committed the applicant for trial before the Bucharest County Court, which acquitted the applicant in a judgment of 15 December 2005.
11.  The prosecutor attached to the Bucharest County Court appealed against this judgment to the Bucharest Court of Appeal, where the case is still pending today.
12.  In a judgment of 26 June 2003, the Bucharest County Court dismissed as premature a civil action lodged by the applicant against the State through its Ministry of Finances, seeking damages for his arrest, which he judged to have been illegal. It appears from the file that the applicant did not appeal against this judgment.
8.  On 17 August 1990 the applicant was chosen to be the Mufti of Xanthi by the Muslims who attended prayers at the mosques of that prefectural district. The Greek State appointed another Mufti. However, the applicant refused to step down.
9.  In 1997 three sets of criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant under Article 175 of the Criminal Code for having usurped the functions of a minister of a “known religion” on the ground that on 30 October 1997, 20 November 1996 and 21 December 1997 he had issued and signed messages in the capacity of the Mufti of Xanthi.
10.  The applicant was legally represented throughout the proceedings by lawyers of his own choice. The courts heard a number of prosecution and defence witnesses.
11.  On 24 March 1999 the single-member first instance criminal court (monomeles plimmeliodikio) of Serres found the applicant guilty in the three sets of proceedings on the ground that he had issued and signed messages in the capacity of the Mufti of Xanthi. The proceedings were joined because they concerned the same offence (decision no. 1407/1999).
12.  On 2 November 2000 the three-member first instance criminal court (trimeles plimmeliodikio) of Serres upheld the applicant’s conviction. It imposed, as a whole, a sentence of seven months’ imprisonment and converted it into a fine (decision no. 2687/2000). The applicant appealed in cassation. He alleged that this conviction amounted to a violation of Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Convention.
13.  On 21 March 2002 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicants’ appeal. It considered that the offence in Article 175 of the Criminal Code was committed “when somebody appeared as a minister of a known religion and when he discharged the functions of the minister’s office including any of the administrative functions pertaining thereto”. The court considered that the applicant had committed this offence because he behaved and appeared as the Mufti of Xanthi. It further considered that the applicant’s conviction was not contrary to Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention, because the applicant had not been punished for his religious beliefs or for expressing certain views but for usurping the functions of a Mufti. As regards Article 6 of the Convention, the Court of Cassation considered that the applicant was legally represented by lawyers of his own choice throughout the proceedings and that he had exercised all his defence rights (judgment no. 708/2002).
5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Braslovče.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 22 July 1996 the applicant was injured in a car accident caused by a third person. The perpetrator’s liability was insured with the insurance company T. (“T”).
8.  On 19 April 1999 the applicant instituted indemnity proceedings in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju), claiming damages in the amount of 25,256,340 tolars (SIT). He requested to be exempted from payment of the court fees.
9.  On 31 August 1999, 3 January and 14 November 2000 and on 19 January 2001 the applicant filed pleadings and/or submitted fresh evidence and/or requested that a date be set for a hearing.
10.  On 5 February 2001 the hearing was held and the applicant’s proposal for the appointment of a traffic expert was upheld.
11.  On 21 March, 21 May and 18 September 2001 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.
12.  On 9 May 2002 the applicant filed pleadings and submitted new evidence.
13.  On 6 June 2002 the court requested the Žalec Local Court to consult a case-file in criminal proceedings. On 28 June 2002 the latter replied that the criminal proceedings were still pending before the Higher Court. On 2 June 2002 the Celje District Court repeated its request and on 11 September 2002 it received the criminal case-file.
14.  On 4 September 2002 the applicant filed pleadings.
15.  On 18 October 2002 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.
16.  On 10 January 2003 a hearing was held. The court upheld the applicant’s request to appoint two experts lodged on 23 January 2003. On 2 February 2004 they submitted their expert opinions.
17.  On 18 February 2004 the applicant filed submissions.
18.  On 16 March 2004, following the Court’s dismissal of one expert, a new expert was appointed.
19.  On 23 March 2004 the applicant filed pleadings and on 17 May 2004 he requested that a date be set for a hearing.
20.  On 9 June 2004 the applicant increased his request.
21.  On 22 June and 21 September 2004 hearings were held.
22.  On 8 October 2004 the court delivered a judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part. The judgment was served on the applicant on 23 November 2004.
23.  On 3 December 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal and requested the District Court to correct the judgment.
24.  The proceedings are pending.
5.  The applicant resides in the town of Vinnytsa. He is a former employee of the Oil and Gas State Inspection (“the Inspection”) of the State Oil and Gas Committee “Derzhnaftogazprom” (“the Committee”).
6.  On 12 July 1999 the Committee decided to liquidate the Inspection. According to the Government, the liquidation of the Inspection was not accomplished.
7.  On 20 August 1999 the applicant was dismissed from his position of the Chief State Inspector of the Vinnytsya Town Department of the Inspection.
8.  On 25 November 1999 the President of Ukraine liquidated the Committee and established a liquidation commission for this purpose. By order of 14 April 2000, the President appointed the Ministry of Fuel and Gas of Ukraine as the Committee’s successor.
9.  In November 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya against commission overseeing the liquidation of the Committee, seeking recovery of salary arrears in respect of the period before 12 July 1999 and compensation.
10.  On 12 December 2000 the court found in part for the applicant and ordered the Committee’s liquidation commission (“the Debtor”) to pay the applicant UAH 1,549[1] in salary arrears and other payments.
11.  On 9 February 2001 the Shevchenkivskyy District Bailiffs’ Service of Kyiv instituted enforcement proceedings.
12.  On 19 February 2001 the Bailiffs’ Service submitted to the Debtor’s bank a payment order in respect of the judgment award.
13.  On 22 February 2001 the bank returned the payment order to the Bailiffs’ Service on the grounds that the Debtor’s account had been closed.
14.  On 28 February 2001 the Bailiffs’ Service suspended the enforcement proceedings pending the results of an enquiry about other bank accounts which the Debtor might have had.
15.  On 26 March 2001 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that no other bank accounts of the Debtor had been found.
16.  On 23 June 2001 the Bailiff’s Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings and returned the execution writ to the applicant on the grounds that it had not been possible to find the Debtor at its address and the latter had no bank accounts.
17.  The applicant did not challenge the decision of the Bailiffs’ Service of 23 June 2001 before the domestic courts.
18.  The judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced.
5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Wesel, Germany.
6.  On 12 February 1980 the applicant and her husband established a joint bank account with a German bank.
7.  On an unspecified date, the applicant’s husband withdrew all of the money from their joint account without the applicant’s consent and placed it into another account in a Turkish bank.
8.  On 23 October 1992 the applicant filed an action with the Aydın Civil Court of first-instance to recover half the money that her husband had withdrawn from their joint bank account.
9.  On 14 September 1999 the Aydın Civil Court of first-instance dismissed the applicant’s case on the ground that she had failed to substantiate her claims. The court reasoned that the applicant had not furnished any bank document, such as receipts indicating withdrawal of money, capable of supporting her allegations. It also noted that the documents kept by the bank had been destroyed at the end of six years’ retention period and that therefore there was no document available on which to conclude that the applicant was right in her assertions.
10.  On 27 December 1999 the applicant appealed.
11.  On 5 April 2000 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request for appeal. It opined that the applicant had failed to prove that her husband had withdrawn all the money from their joint bank account and placed it into another bank account.
12.  On 16 November 2000 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request for rectification.
13.  On 15 December 2000 the Court of Cassation’s decision was served on the applicant.
8.  On 17 August 1990 the applicant was chosen to be the Mufti of Xanthi by the Muslims who attended prayers at the mosques of that prefectural district. The Greek State appointed another mufti. However, the applicant refused to step down.
9.  Fourth sets of criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant under Article 175 of the Criminal Code for having usurped the functions of a minister of a “known religion” on the ground that on 11 February 1996 and 17 February 1996 he had issued and signed messages in the capacity of the Mufti of Xanthi.
10.  The applicant was legally represented throughout the proceedings by lawyers of his own choice. The courts heard a number of prosecution and defence witnesses.
11.  On 11 December 1997 the single-member first instance criminal court (monomeles plimmeliodikio) of Lamia found him guilty in the three first sets of proceedings on the ground that he had issued and signed messages in the capacity of the Mufti of Xanthi (decisions nos. 3913/1997, 3914/1997, 3915/1997). On 1 December 1999 the single-member first instance criminal court (monomeles plimmeliodikio) of Lamia found the applicant guilty in the fourth set of proceedings on the same ground (decision no. 4919/1999). The applicant appealed.
12.  On 31 May 2000 the three-member first instance criminal court (trimeles plimmeliodikio) of Lamia upheld the applicant’s conviction in the four sets of proceedings. It imposed, as a whole, a sentence of eight months’ imprisonment converted into a fine (decisions nos. 1654/2000, 1655/2000, 1656/2000 and 1657/2000). He alleged that these convictions amounted to a violation of Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Convention.
13.  On 8 March 2002 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeals concerning the four sets of proceedings. It considered that the offence in Article 175 of the Criminal Code was committed “when somebody appeared as a minister of a known religion and when he discharged the functions of the minister’s office including any of the administrative functions pertaining thereto”. The court considered that the applicant had committed this offence because he behaved and appeared as the Mufti of Xanthi. It further considered that the applicant’s conviction was not contrary to Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention, because the applicant had not been punished for his religious beliefs or for expressing certain views but for usurping the functions of a Mufti. As regards Article 6 of the Convention, the Court of Cassation considered that the applicant was legally represented by lawyers of his own choice throughout the proceedings and that he had exercised all his defence rights (judgment no. 304/2002).